Social contract

The Social Contract is theory of rights

Introduction to the Social Contract and Natural Laws

Natural law, can most simply be defined as what it is not, that is positive law, or law given by a government to its people. What it is can be argued by philosophers but we can say that is governed by nature and is universal and based around what the majority of people would see as actions that are morally acceptable. Grotius (1583-1645) In the 16th Century he wrote that man has natural rights but in order establish a political authority they have to give up some of those rights. Man are sovereign and under there own jurisdiction but they should not interfere with others.

The ancient world philosophers and Natural Laws

In his Republic, Plato argued that natural inclinations and capacities should order the ideal society. Men made of "gold" should lead as philosopher-kings, while those of meaner metals should work as craftsmen or farmers. Children should be classified early and raised by the class fitting of their potential. In this "natural" ordering of society, "a man should do his work in the station of life to which he was called by his capacities.". Aristotle, in Nicomachean Ethics, distinguished between natural law and conventional law, the former being an enduring universal truth, the later a temporary rule

Hobbes and the Social Contract

Hobbes - Was thinking how society might emerge from a State of Nature. Hobbes is imagining that we have unqualified rights and there is no law under that condition and the only right people have is the right to preserve themselves. Anybody will do anything they can to protect themselves, be competitive, seek glory and notoriety therefore life becomes "nasty,brutish and short" and will lead to war and to fear and this is the motivation to improve their situation and that will be the hinge on which to sign on to the contract . A contract under which people give up their rights to sovereign power. He is encouraged in these thoughts given the time he was living in. The King for instance was being tried by a military court and the state was being ruled by Cromwell and a lot of people were saying that they should not acquiesce to the new Cromwellian order.

In the Contract he believes that eventually people will come together with the mutual desire for a new society. When the people agree their united body will be represented by a sovereign and they will hand all their power to him and in order to maintain he might need to use the sword to keep order.

Locke and the Social Contract

Like Hobbes, Locke sees power in abstract terms. He also sees men in the context of the state of nature. Where there is natural freedom and equality and men use use their natural capacity to keep to a moral law and law based on reason backed by God.

Under is construct the state of nature can degenerate and lead to conflict at which point man can decide to go in to Political Society by way of a Social Contract but Locke, unlike Hobbes, is against the divine right of kings and absolutism. You can not give absolute power because the absolutist is put outside of the law. With Hobbes consent is irrevocable as long as the power protects you. For Locke it must maintain consent if the the people. Ultimately it brought you security

Rousseau and the Social Contract

All men are born free, but everywhere they are in chains Rousseau In a state of nature people are not completely free because they are ruled by their desires instead of by reason. Rousseau thought their was an inherent conflict between your freedom and obeying the law. We want to be free - guided by our will - but we lose it within the constraints of society but can regain it through a Civil Freedom - A society where people are under their own collective will - for instance people legislating together to enshrine their freedoms - a common cause - a general good and thus people become a higher self.

In Rousseau's explanation of freedom, there is a division between two types of freedom. They are personal freedom and social freedom. Personal freedom comes from humans' basic instincts and natural selfishness. An individual acts only if he benefits. Rousseau also called this freedom a state of nature. The second freedom, social freedom, is achieved when an individual obeys the desires of the General Will.

All people are born free, but the natural freedom is not achieved until these people enter into a social contract

Locke differs by stating natural freedom is obtained when the natural law is obeyed. Locke does not need people to alienate their personal freedom, he just wants it to be entrusted to the natural law. The natural law preserves the freedoms of each individual in order to preserve all of mankind. If the natural laws are carried out against their wills, the people have the obligation and the right to alter the natural law. For both Rousseau and Locke, this acquisition of natural freedom is called natural subjugation

So under the state of natural law

• Hobbes - Believes this lead to a collapse of society requiring the need for a supreme body to rule
• Locke - Believes this will lead to a more collaborative state backed by reason and the law of God
• Rousseau - Does not believe this will lead to war or collaboration. Believing man is not naturally sociable or aggressive but a solitary creature.

When Rousseau mentions Hobbes it is unfavorable - for him the submission of the people to a supreme leader is like a shepherd looking after his sheep and ultimately slaughtering them.

Also wrote Emile - How to educate a young man and make him authentic and prepare him for citizenship. For Rousseau the Social Contract it is process rather then an end.

But there is a darker side to Rousseau thinking - That there should be no dissent after the populace sign on the Contract and instead a degree of reeducation for those who did. But Rousseau didn't believe Social Contract would work in France - it had gone too far. Robespierre was an admirer of Rousseau but misinterpreted or misused the theory - Robespierre believed in forcing a general will and purge those who did not agree but for Rousseau it has been authentic almost organic desire for the contract.

Hume was skeptical and undercutting this abstract idea of natural laws. Hume said that consent is not the only basis for government. People do not actively consent but does not mean they are necessarily bad or illegitimate governments. He was more concerned with the utilitarianism of the government and its success in utilizing the resources of the country and how well they conduct the role of government itself. Forcing people to give up their freedom would have adverse consequences.

The role of women is not defined in the Social Contract. Women were excluded from the Social Contract. Locke himself even says that women have a natural subordination.

The Social Contract and the American Constitution

American Constitution - all mean are created equal and endowed with certain inalienable rights. The King had broken contract between the colonists and Britain because the King was seen to be no longer protecting their interests. The Constitution is very Lockean in its right to resume natural rights and resist British authorities. When the Federal constitution was drawn up it was very much in the image of Rousseau there was no place for conflict or people with differing view or discussion of what to do with those who did not want to participate - Yet the Founding Fathers constructed a constitution that allowed a certain of pluralism, conflict and competition. Sustaining the social contract therefore depends in large part on so ordering the constitution and laws as to avoid unbalanced or excessive concentrations of power

The framers of the U.S. Constitution addressed the problem of avoiding unbalanced or excessive concentrations of power in government by adopting a constitution in which legislative, executive, and judicial powers are largely divided among separate branches, with each having some power to check the abuses of the others. Legislative powers were further divided between two legislative bodies. Some powers were delegated to the central national government, which others were reserved to the component states or the people. A negative reaction to Rousseau in some ways.

In the 20 Century John Rawls has re-defined the Social Contract concept using Locke and Rousseau concept of a promise. Not not an explicit promise that people make but a hypothetical contract - one that if you were think rationally would be agreed and this can be used a basis for a certain arrangement of justice and division of resources. This diluted form has been central to framing many debates today. E.g. How economic and social welfare resources should be shared - Patient Charters , stakeholders - . Hence citizens then get a sense of a stake in the government they elect.